- 3 -
In August 2002, Appeals Officer Judith Hornstein was
assigned to petitioner’s collection case. Ms. Hornstein sent
petitioner a letter scheduling a hearing for October 8, 2002.
Petitioner did not attend the hearing.
On October 8, 2002, Ms. Hornstein wrote to petitioner and
again offered him the opportunity to meet with her. On October
9, 2002, petitioner wrote Ms. Hornstein that because issues of
religion and conscience would not be considered at the hearing he
saw no point in attending the hearing. On October 23, 2002,
respondent issued petitioner a Notice of Determination Concerning
Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330 sustaining
the proposed levy.
In his petition, petitioner contended that the 10-year
period of limitations for collection for 1988 and 1989 had
expired and challenged the deficiencies and additions to tax for
1988 and 1989 on moral and religious grounds.
OPINION
Respondent concedes that petitioner did not receive the
notices of deficiency for 1988 or 1989 and that he is entitled to
contest the underlying tax liability for 1988 and 1989.
Accordingly, we review petitioner’s underlying tax liability for
1988 and 1989. Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176 (2000). If
the underlying tax liability is properly at issue, we review that
issue on a de novo basis. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011